You have continued to ignore my attempts to resolve this difficulty. Those four articles on the proposed counties were factually incorrect, but the thing that bothered my the most was that those articles as they had been written did not lead to any records. Now I have updated those articles to make them correct. And I can see that they just might lead to some records. As a result, I now withdraw any desire to remove those four articles from the Family Search Wiki. Although I did all of the work, I do not hold any grudge. I hope we can work peaceably together if our paths ever cross in the future. [[User:Sabwoo|Sabwoo]] 22:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

+

+

==Extinct or Renamed Counties of Arizona ==

+

+

Dsammy

+

+

You have chosen to ignore my last message to compromise on the issue of the "Extinct or Renamed Counties of Arizona". Your reply to the message before that was strongly worded, but very muddled in why you felt the way you did. I would like to start again so that we might settle this issue.

+

+

Since my last message to you, I have been doing some research on the problem. I find that there were a total of 10 proposals of one form or another sent to the US Congress to make Arizona a territory. All but one of them rejected and none of them contained maps of any proposed counties. You only recorded one of those, the one Sylvester Mowry was involved with.

+

+

Also it is incorrect that Mowry drew up a map showing the four proposed counties: Castle Dome, Ewell, Mesilla, and Dona Ana. He did draw up a map, but it did not have any proposed counties on it. The map in question was drawn up in 1860 at the unofficial convention in Tucson to accompany the provisional constitution of Arizona Territory that was adopted.

+

+

I have created a new article, called [[Previous Jurisdictions to land in Arizona]]. It tells about this convention in 1860 and shows the map of those proposed counties. It also tells of the next year in 1861 about the proposed Arizona Territory seceding from the USA. Then their acceptance by the Confederacy as a Territory. All of this, showing the maps involved. It does not include any the failed proposals to the US Congress.

+

+

I invite you to check out the article [[Previous Jurisdictions to land in Arizona]]. I invite you to read all my messages and reply so that we might work on this issue together. I invite you to delete your incorrectly worded county articles: Castle Dome, Ewell, and Mesilla. I invite you to choose instead the article [[Previous Jurisdictions to land in Arizona]]. Please let me know. Thank you.--[[User:Sabwoo|Sabwoo]] 00:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

+

+

==Extinct or Renamed Counties of Arizona - conversation ==

+

+

From your strongly worded reply to my first message, I see that you really care about the Arizona article in the Research Wiki. I care also. I live in Arizona and my family has been here since 1882, that is why I try to improve the Arizona article.

+

+

But I am at a loss as to why you feel the way you do. Your reply was confusing to me. I want to understanding your reasoning. So, let me state again in more detail what I propose to do, then you tell me what detail you object to and why. I am not perfect and maybe I have overlooked something. Please let me know.

+

+

It seems you believe that I want to delete Rio Virgin County. Not true, I would not delete it. I want to keep it. Rio Virgin County was created by Utah, but also included land outside of Utah in present day Arizona and Nevada. Land records created for Arizona and Nevada were sent to the Rio Virgin County offices. I want Rio Virgin County listed in the Extinct and Renamed Counties of Arizona. I propose to leave things the way they are for Rio Virgin County.

+

+

I also want Pah-Ute County listed in the Extinct and Renamed Counties of Arizona. It was created by Arizona and covered land in present day Arizona and Nevada, some of the same land covered by Rio Virgin County. Records were created for land in Arizona and Nevada that were sent to the Pah-Ute County offices. I propose to leave things the way they are for Pah-Ute County.

+

+

There are seven other counties listed in the Extinct and Renamed Counties of Arizona - Bernalillo, Dona Ana, Rio Arriba, Santa Ana, Socorro, Taos, and Valencia. All of these seven counties were created by New Mexico, but covered land which later was in Arizona and Nevada. Any records created were sent to their respective New Mexico county offices. When Arizona became a territory, all seven of these counties were discontinued in Arizona and replaced. None of these seven counties were ever Arizona counties. Leaving them in is not helpful to those new to genealogy. I propose to remove these seven counties from the Extinct and Renamed Counties of Arizona and delete them.

+

+

There are also three other counties listed in the Extinct and Renamed Counties of Arizona - Castle Dome, Ewell, and Mesilla. I know you have made many changes to these and maybe have a closeness for them. But none of these three counties were ever counties of Arizona, they were “proposed counties” that were rejected. They were never created, so no records were created for these counties. Leaving them in is not helpful to those new to genealogy. I propose to remove these counties from the Extinct and Renamed Counties of Arizona and delete them.

+

+

None of the above proposals have yet been done. I would appreciate understanding your reasons for opposing any of this. I would like to work with you on making the Arizona article better. For me the reason for doing all this is to make things clear and helpful for those just starting out in genealogy. Thanks [[User:Sabwoo|Sabwoo]] 05:34, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

+

+

== Extinct or Renamed Counties of Arizona ==

+

+

I see that you are a contributor to three articles in the "Extinct or Renamed Counties" of Arizona - Castle Dome, Ewell, and Mesilla. For me, the purpose of the Family Search Wiki is to identify the location where records may be found, so that those who don't know may be led to the right location. I don't believe those three articles above help to do this.

+

+

Since those three counties never existed, those articles do not lead to finding any records. They are not helpful. I propose to remove those three articles. But before I proceed, I ask for your side of the story. I would like for this to be done by agreement. Please let me know.

+

+

In the end, I intend to have only two articles listed - Pah-Ute and Rio Virgin. The only reason Rio Virgin will be listed, is that it incorrectly covered land in Arizona and therefore might have some records of Arizona. For me the reason for doing all this is to make things clear and helpful for those just starting out in genealogy.

+

+

I have come to the conclusion that those three articles should be removed from the Arizona article as "Extinct or Renamed Counties." It appears that you believe otherwise. I would appreciate understanding your reasons and working together to make the Arizona article better. [[User:Sabwoo|Sabwoo]] 21:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

+

+

: They STAY. Part of Rio Virgin County was northwest corner of Arizona after it was abolished after the boundaries of Utah Territory was changed when state of Nevada was created. It is not 100 percent Nevada. Please restore it.&nbsp; Of all states, you picked on Arizona to try to delete. It does NOT means the search for records. Wiki is "Reference Wiki" and it is stated as such, meaning not just the records, but also research to guide anyone looking for right directions. You want to remove the road signs, setting the researchers on roads to nowhere! [[User:Dsammy|Dsammy]] 23:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The [https://wiki.familysearch.org/en/FamilySearch_Research_Wiki FamilySearch Research Wiki] is delighted to let you know that the [https://wiki.familysearch.org/en/Hamburg_Passenger_Lists Hamburg Passenger Lists] article you helped create will become a Featured Article that is highlighted on the [https://wiki.familysearch.org/en/Main_Page Main page] of the Wiki. It will appear there for seven days. Thank you for your excellent work – you have given readers/researcher important access to records. Your contributions are appreciated and will assist others in finding their ancestors. You have made a difference in research!

+

The [[FamilySearch Wiki:About Us|FamilySearch Research Wiki]]] is delighted to let you know that the [https://wiki.familysearch.org/en/Hamburg_Passenger_Lists Hamburg Passenger Lists] article you helped create will become a Featured Article that is highlighted on the [https://wiki.familysearch.org/en/Main_Page Main page] of the Wiki. It will appear there for seven days. Thank you for your excellent work – you have given readers/researcher important access to records. Your contributions are appreciated and will assist others in finding their ancestors. You have made a difference in research!

When posting questions or messages, please put them at the top, not at the bottom. Thank you.Dsammy

Extinct or Renamed Counties of Arizona - continuing conversation

Dsammy

You have continued to ignore my attempts to resolve this difficulty. Those four articles on the proposed counties were factually incorrect, but the thing that bothered my the most was that those articles as they had been written did not lead to any records. Now I have updated those articles to make them correct. And I can see that they just might lead to some records. As a result, I now withdraw any desire to remove those four articles from the Family Search Wiki. Although I did all of the work, I do not hold any grudge. I hope we can work peaceably together if our paths ever cross in the future. Sabwoo 22:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Extinct or Renamed Counties of Arizona

Dsammy

You have chosen to ignore my last message to compromise on the issue of the "Extinct or Renamed Counties of Arizona". Your reply to the message before that was strongly worded, but very muddled in why you felt the way you did. I would like to start again so that we might settle this issue.

Since my last message to you, I have been doing some research on the problem. I find that there were a total of 10 proposals of one form or another sent to the US Congress to make Arizona a territory. All but one of them rejected and none of them contained maps of any proposed counties. You only recorded one of those, the one Sylvester Mowry was involved with.

Also it is incorrect that Mowry drew up a map showing the four proposed counties: Castle Dome, Ewell, Mesilla, and Dona Ana. He did draw up a map, but it did not have any proposed counties on it. The map in question was drawn up in 1860 at the unofficial convention in Tucson to accompany the provisional constitution of Arizona Territory that was adopted.

I have created a new article, called Previous Jurisdictions to land in Arizona. It tells about this convention in 1860 and shows the map of those proposed counties. It also tells of the next year in 1861 about the proposed Arizona Territory seceding from the USA. Then their acceptance by the Confederacy as a Territory. All of this, showing the maps involved. It does not include any the failed proposals to the US Congress.

Extinct or Renamed Counties of Arizona - conversation

From your strongly worded reply to my first message, I see that you really care about the Arizona article in the Research Wiki. I care also. I live in Arizona and my family has been here since 1882, that is why I try to improve the Arizona article.

But I am at a loss as to why you feel the way you do. Your reply was confusing to me. I want to understanding your reasoning. So, let me state again in more detail what I propose to do, then you tell me what detail you object to and why. I am not perfect and maybe I have overlooked something. Please let me know.

It seems you believe that I want to delete Rio Virgin County. Not true, I would not delete it. I want to keep it. Rio Virgin County was created by Utah, but also included land outside of Utah in present day Arizona and Nevada. Land records created for Arizona and Nevada were sent to the Rio Virgin County offices. I want Rio Virgin County listed in the Extinct and Renamed Counties of Arizona. I propose to leave things the way they are for Rio Virgin County.

I also want Pah-Ute County listed in the Extinct and Renamed Counties of Arizona. It was created by Arizona and covered land in present day Arizona and Nevada, some of the same land covered by Rio Virgin County. Records were created for land in Arizona and Nevada that were sent to the Pah-Ute County offices. I propose to leave things the way they are for Pah-Ute County.

There are seven other counties listed in the Extinct and Renamed Counties of Arizona - Bernalillo, Dona Ana, Rio Arriba, Santa Ana, Socorro, Taos, and Valencia. All of these seven counties were created by New Mexico, but covered land which later was in Arizona and Nevada. Any records created were sent to their respective New Mexico county offices. When Arizona became a territory, all seven of these counties were discontinued in Arizona and replaced. None of these seven counties were ever Arizona counties. Leaving them in is not helpful to those new to genealogy. I propose to remove these seven counties from the Extinct and Renamed Counties of Arizona and delete them.

There are also three other counties listed in the Extinct and Renamed Counties of Arizona - Castle Dome, Ewell, and Mesilla. I know you have made many changes to these and maybe have a closeness for them. But none of these three counties were ever counties of Arizona, they were “proposed counties” that were rejected. They were never created, so no records were created for these counties. Leaving them in is not helpful to those new to genealogy. I propose to remove these counties from the Extinct and Renamed Counties of Arizona and delete them.

None of the above proposals have yet been done. I would appreciate understanding your reasons for opposing any of this. I would like to work with you on making the Arizona article better. For me the reason for doing all this is to make things clear and helpful for those just starting out in genealogy. Thanks Sabwoo 05:34, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Extinct or Renamed Counties of Arizona

I see that you are a contributor to three articles in the "Extinct or Renamed Counties" of Arizona - Castle Dome, Ewell, and Mesilla. For me, the purpose of the Family Search Wiki is to identify the location where records may be found, so that those who don't know may be led to the right location. I don't believe those three articles above help to do this.

Since those three counties never existed, those articles do not lead to finding any records. They are not helpful. I propose to remove those three articles. But before I proceed, I ask for your side of the story. I would like for this to be done by agreement. Please let me know.

In the end, I intend to have only two articles listed - Pah-Ute and Rio Virgin. The only reason Rio Virgin will be listed, is that it incorrectly covered land in Arizona and therefore might have some records of Arizona. For me the reason for doing all this is to make things clear and helpful for those just starting out in genealogy.

I have come to the conclusion that those three articles should be removed from the Arizona article as "Extinct or Renamed Counties." It appears that you believe otherwise. I would appreciate understanding your reasons and working together to make the Arizona article better. Sabwoo 21:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

They STAY. Part of Rio Virgin County was northwest corner of Arizona after it was abolished after the boundaries of Utah Territory was changed when state of Nevada was created. It is not 100 percent Nevada. Please restore it. Of all states, you picked on Arizona to try to delete. It does NOT means the search for records. Wiki is "Reference Wiki" and it is stated as such, meaning not just the records, but also research to guide anyone looking for right directions. You want to remove the road signs, setting the researchers on roads to nowhere! Dsammy 23:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

You must have missed one project meeting in October. This was mentioned there. Dsammy 20:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

County Headings for Utah

Hi, Sammy! We’ve been appreciating the discussions and decisions regarding headings on the county pages for New York, Illinois and others. We want to adopt many of those changes and adapt some specifically to Utah.

Some volunteers for WikiProject Utah have already begun adapting the county pages. Your great suggestions will be implemented later, and we need to move now to prepare for a big push in January. Making your comments on the discussion page will allow both progress and improvement. Thank you, AdkinsWH 14:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Geneva, New York

I noticed that Geneva is named in both municipality boxes for Ontario County and Seneca County. Is it in both counties? When I clicked on Geneva in the Seneca County municipality box, it takes me to the Geneva page that is in Ontario county. Dianekay

Same city straddling county lines of Ontario and Seneca. Added extra breadcrumb plus temp and cat. Dsammy 20:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Aurora in Erie and Cayuga

Aurora is in Municipalities box for Cayuga but when I click on Aurora it takes me to Erie County, NY.

Added "Cayuga County" internally to separate from Town of Aurora that is in Erie County. Dsammy 20:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Fulton of Schoharie and Oswego Counties

Sorry, one more. The town of Fulton is in both the Schoharie and Oswego Municipalities box, but both of these towns lead to the same town page.Is the town of Fulton in both counties? If not, will you let me know when you fix this, so I can add the categories to the right page? Thank you again Dianekay

Good catch, it is something we have to be on lookout for. Fixed Fulton, Oswego County, New York and Fulton, Schoharie County, New York. Dsammy 17:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Newtown, Queens County, New York

Did you intend for Newtown and Elmhurst of Queens, New York to go to the same page? When I click on Newtown, it takes me to the Elmhurst page. Thanks Dianekay

YES! Newtown is former name for Elmhurst. After the English took over the colony, the Dutch of Newtown renamed to Elmhurst, which is Dutch for "grove of elms." Note needs to be made on Elmhurst about the name change. See Elmhurst, Queens, New YorkDsammy 17:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Ulster County, New York

I just thought you might want to check the spelling of the County Seat of Ulster County, New York. You have Kington, but I believe it might be Kingston. Once the spelling is fixed, then the link will lead to the right page. Thank you! Dianekay

Heading size

I am currently going through all the counties of New York and fixing all the headings the way David asked (like Albany County). I am using H3, H4, H5. If there are H2 headings it is because I am not there yet. I am only as far as Jefferson County as of this morning.

This is a complete deviation from the established standard for H3 and H4. I know about H2 involving Historical Facts section in need of change to H3, but not the section covering entire Resources section. County Layout committee standards said NO H5, only H2 reserved for Resources, then H3 and H4. Any deeming H5 to be made "bold" instead of H5. This matter is on agenda for today's NY meeting. Dsammy 15:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Oneida Courthouses

i knew there were two, but wasn't sure if i should put on both pictures. But, since you mentioned it, I will put them both on.

This will have to be referred to WikiProject Idaho, considering the fact the moderator Jimmy Parker died yesterday. Dsammy 03:13, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Sammy, Your message me about Idaho

Boise, was it something I did do you think? So sorry if I did. I went back to check it out but didn't see anything. What is wrong with it? Thanks, let me know if there is something I can fix or undo. All I'm doing is adding dead links and exchanging old FHL to new FHL website, please explain more. --Utahnancy 04:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

You didn't do anything wrong with adding dead link template. This alerted me to check out of Wiki links closely, found the links at the other site were gone, plus a link that did not exist in first place. I located a contact page there and sent them a message about the dead links. Nothing to be concerned. Dsammy 05:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank You

Thanks for helping me in my work to add FHCs to the County Pages. We are only adding them to the County they are located in, and not were the people may go to use them. I will discuss this possibility with the team for a future project.Sandralpond 14:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussing edits/style w/ FHL consultants

Hey Sammy,

I met with the U.S./Canada Research Consultants at the FHL last week, where they asked me to convey to you the methods that they, as individuals, would like to communicate with you regarding the editing of wiki pages. With a few exceptions, they are wanting to suspend wiki editing discussions by email and at the reference counter. They prefer discussion pages over email because discussion pages are more transparent and better archived. And discussing wiki editing at the counter is problemmatic because their job is to handle questions quickly so they can be free to answer patrons' questions about how to do research. Often when someone is at the counter talking to them, other patrons avoid going up there to ask their own questions, so that scenario is something they want to avoid. I knew not all of them were in sync regarding the methods/media by which they'd like to discuss editing issues, so I asked them to send me a list. Here it is:

Thanks, Sammy, for helping tweak communication with these folks so that it is more transparent, better archived, and more conducive to great patron service at the desk! RitcheyMT 14:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

WorldCat

Hi DSammy,

I just wanted to let you know I am using the David Dilts style as far as world cat entries are concerned. I am typing and linking them in as David does and adding a phrase that Marilyn uses because it makes sense. We are calling it Other libraries (WorldCat) because most people have no idea what WorldCat is and "other libraries" describes what they will be linking to. We added (WorldCat) so that they could get used to the idea of what WorldCat is.

Of course, we all have differing opinions and I am not writing by way of asking permission, but to let you know this is what I am doing and I would prefer that you don't change it unless you have a really good reason for doing so.

Thank you, Diane Rogers

Don't know what you are talking about, you haven't given me examples. The only concern I had with Dilts is about using url address instead of template, causing the pages to bloat unnecessary. I know he didn't like the number being visible. Dsammy 22:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Would it not be better, as Sammy mentioned, to use {{WorldCat}} instead? I could change the template to display "Other libraries (WorldCat)..." or something like that. Thomas_Lerman 14:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

It would be redundant since the WorldCat says "Find the book in a Library" using Dilts method (using whole url instead of template and hiding the record ID). And Dilts method will NOT show the book being available in OTHER formats, while my preference will show all formats. Handybook for Genealogists in particular is available in ebook and on CD. There are other formats also available including microfilms. Basically the WorldCat problem is NOT really resolved yet even if it is same edition. Dsammy 16:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

New York project

Hi Dsammy (New York moderator),

Four Family History Library US/Canada reference consultants will be working to upgrade Wiki's New York pages over the next several months:

User:HendricksonP (Patsy Hendrickson)

User:HarrisonJB (Jason Harrison)

User:BingamanTD (Tim Bingaman)

User:Diltsgd (David Dilts)

We ask you to be patient with the changes we make through the end of this year. If we do something you dislike, please contact us before rolling it back to see if we can come to an agreement.

Illinois for FGS

IRAD

Just wanted to say thanks for your help on the IRAD pages. I think with the community's help they are looking good. Thanks for your input. Mcbridelw 11 Aug 2011. McBrideLW

David, As you can tell we are working with Lise Embley on the county pages. They are holding a contest until the end of June for links and content. The US Research Consultants are entering them. Danielle is the team lead working with Lise Embley.

With this structure, we are also trying to upgrade some of the subjects. Right now, some of us have certain assignments. We would appreciate your patience with us. If you have questions, you can ask me anything and I will try to answer your queries. Please don't move the items from the discussion pages to the page until we have we have complete the information gathering.

There are 7 IRADS leaders. The leaders are going to be updating Vital Records, Probate Records, and Land Records. Jeff Blaylock is updating Census Records for the Counties, Beth Taylor is updating Historical Facts. Diane Rogers is updating the County Template box. Please don't change the information. We can discuss what may need to be looked at, but we don't need to be redoing things.

County template, - you meant infobox. lot of empty lines we don't use and coord is my area at same time installing locality template. The only concern is listing email address in there. We aren't babysitters and constantly changing to keep up to date. Email addresses aren't as stable as physical addresses. Best to leave off email address completely. I looked elsewhere outside of Wiki, more specifically Wikipedia where the infobox concept come from - they don't list email addresses. It is responsibility of county courthouses or whatever the official organization is to keep theirs up to date on their own websites. We just link to them. And can you explain to Diane Rogers that < BR > and < br > have exact same function regardless whether they are capitalized or not. I noticed she changes them from caps to lower case. As for Beth Taylor, I will be beating her to changing the heading from Quick Facts, History or whatever it is to "Historical Facts" when installing locality template.

We were wondering if there was a topic in the county you would like to work on? We could have you report and mark of the x's on our chart. I look forward to improving the counties with you.pnh 21:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Locality Template is what I am doing and after installment, I check to clean out non-functioning codes and fix headings to bring them up to date. Some are still using "Local Histories", resizing Historical Facts and clean up infobox clutter (many empty lines not used for Illinois.)

After discussion with David Dilts and working through, realized not many are familiar with Mailing Lists and Message Boards, I will tackle this AFTER I finish with Locality Templates. Dsammy 07:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

WikiProjects

Static presentation on the Wiki

Hi Dsammy,

Back in March you asked about a static presentation on the Wiki. Since then you are probably aware of the one we have, but you can find them by searching for the word "Teach" in the Wiki search box. It should be the first result, but if you can't find it, here is the link to the teaching aids page. nixiao 21:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic Groups change proposal

There is already a long-standing category for Ethnic, Political, or Religious Groups. That topic is broader than the more narrowly focused Ethnic Groups category. In order to avoid duplication, I suggest that all ethnic groups should be moved to the broader category from the category "Ethnic Groups," and then then the more narrow category be deleted. Diltsgd 01:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

That is a problem. There are many ethnic groups who are adverse to being labeled political or religious alongside with ethnic. This came up in a meeting I had last Wednesday. It belongs separately. Here's this description of ethnic group - "An ethnic group is a group of humans whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage that is real or presumed." That's from the Wikipedia. I would be adverse if I were to be part of German group with religion label. Dsammy 02:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The category could have been called just Groups but no one would have understood, so it got the longer title. The category is for all three kinds of groups. It is not just for people that are all three kinds at once. The category is for groups that are either one of the three. So Germans can be an ethnic group, Loyalists can be a political group, and Huguenots can be a religious group. The category allows genealogists to find any kind of human group about which there may be special records. No one is asking an ethnic group to be labelled religious or political if that is not appropriate to their group. We are just trying to fit as many kinds of human groups as possible into one overall category.

It isn't saying you have to be all three at once to fit in the category, it is just saying we think these three fit well together. We also see Acadians, Cajuns, and Creoles, and also the category for Migration Routes that includes (1)Canals, (2)Ports, (3)Railroads, (4)Rivers and Lakes, and (5)Trails and Roads. No one says the only way to get in the Migration Route category is to be all 5 things at once--a clear impossibility. So it is okay to have ethnic, political, and religious groups in one category together because genealogists use their records in all about the same way. In fact genealogically, they fit together so well, it seems strange to me not to have them together. Diltsgd 21:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

We would like your input

I am sorry you had to leave from the meeting yesterday as we wanted your input on a subject. Please take a look at the item at this link and please let us know if it satisfies your need. Thomas Lerman 05:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Deleted Links

You deleted links on the York County, Virginia page to individual cemeteries and churches deeming them unnecessary. For each cemetery or church, I develop an individual page that has information, history, interments, etc. from that cemetery. I am wondering why you deleted the links? I think it is important that each cemetery and church have an individual page to avoid cluttered county pages. I had asked around and others thought this was a good idea. Let me know what you think and, if you agree, I will restore the links.Gregorybean 00:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

You were trying to internalize the links for individual cemeteries, amounting to try to create page for each cemetery. This is a no-no. It's ok to use external links. Likewise lists of names of interments are not allowed at all. That is a database. See this warning: William_Hutchinson:_Firth_Idaho_Entrepreneur posted by the Sysops.

The objective of the FSWiki is to be a research resource, not a dumping place for datasets/databases, nor queries.

Eventually you will want to research more on the cemeteries in York County because I believe there are more cemeteries not listed in Findagrave.com. I kept finding more and more cemeteries not listed in Findagrave.com for New York state alone, already identified over 7,000 and estimate of at least 3,000 un-named marks shown on the GNIS.

I listed 4 more cemeteries for the independent city of Poquoson because they were within the boundaries of the city. The Poquoson Cemetery is outside of the city. Dsammy 03:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The church lists, can not be linked internally individually, either for same reasons. Dsammy 03:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess I am not understanding how individual pages for cemeteries is a "data set" that should not be included and how the page marked for deletion you referenced applies. I feel that individual pages for cemeteries adds to the purpose of the Wiki, to help users “find, use, and analyze” the records in individual cemeteries.

Outside links may not be helpful to researchers for a few reasons.

There may be no outside link to a cemetery

The information on the outside link may be inaccurate or inadequate #Outside links may become broken or the outside page may be deleted altogether

It seems natural that Wiki contributors could create a page, using outside links in addition to non-internet sources, that would have important information like a map, pictures, a history of the cemetery, dates of earliest and latest interments, activity of the cemetery, etc. It seems like it would make for a more consistent and thorough family history research experience to be able to collect information from multiple sources to create a thorough and expandable page for each cemetery.

Forcing the use of outside links means making Wiki contributors donate the information to these outside sites instead of internalizing it and creating a new page. It seems cumbersome to do this when the Wiki is the perfect place to post the information. Can you explain the underlying principle for not allowing individual pages?

That is the price of FSWiki. Small pages serve no purposes for individual cemeteries. And datasets meaning the lists of names, dates of burials, etc, which is not allowed. Exclusion of the outside links will discourage anyone from putting up their own sites with data they have direct control over. What you are requesting is that we force/strong-arm the cemetery owners as well as the database owners to post on the FSWiki. That's is plain and simple and we don't want to do that. The Sysops has reiterated again and again we need to reach out and get more cooperation instead of forcing everythin internally. dsammy 08:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

As you move out of eastern Virginia, you will find a great deal of cemeteries aren't even linked to any specific church. When there are ones, they're usually small except for the Roman Catholic cemeteries generally and the ones that are linked are usually small and defunct churches with no records. dsammy 08:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I have had this discussion with others. See Talk:United States Cemeteries. I have also posted this discussion at FamilySearch Wiki talk:Purpose and Appropriate Topics. I recognize that there people have differing views on what and what is not appropriate. I have invested a lot of time on creating individual cemetery pages, so I hope you understand why I am impassioned about their existence. Thank you for your help in this matter.Gregorybean 07:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Where should wikiproject contributors communicate?

People who work on writing projects on the wiki are asking for an online venue they can use to talk about...

What should the Manual of Style include and how should it look?

I have moved the discussion items from the Manual of Style page to the discussion page, and begun an outline for items to be covered in the MOS. It is kind of a dramatic (read: VERY "bold") change, and I would appreciate feedback, contributions, suggestions, discussion. Lise 14:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

How to link to county histories on BYU Digital Archives?

Hey Sammy, if you were to make a link from a county page to a digitized county history on BYU Digital Archives, how would you make it? Would the use of a template make it so that if the path to the histories were changed by Webmasters, it'd be easy to fix the many broken wiki links by fixing one template? Ritcheymt 22:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

ONLY if there is a specific ID link-locked to specific record, then template can be done. That is the ONLY key to a workable template. Same is with Family History Catalog, still waiting for FHLC catalogers to make up their mind as to what specific ID is going to be! Sooner the better. dsammy 23:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Changed Baker to Baker City

So let it be written, so let it be done. -- ccsmith(talk| contribs) 19:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Stub Removal

Hello Dsammy

We at the FamilySearch Wiki would like to use this article,Chelan County, Washington, for a featured article on the Main Page of the Wiki. However, the word "stub" appears at the very top of the page. If you feel there is enough content to give researchers a good place to work from - we need YOU to remove the word "stub" from the article before we can feature it.Thank you for your consideration.ps Please do this for every Washington County for which you were a main contributor. Again, Thank you very much.

I do not care for those stubs. State of Washington is long way and lacking a moderator. Dsammy 16:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank YOU / YOUR Article is Selected

Hi Dsammy,

The FamilySearch Research Wiki] is delighted to let you know that the Hamburg Passenger Lists article you helped create will become a Featured Article that is highlighted on the Main page of the Wiki. It will appear there for seven days. Thank you for your excellent work – you have given readers/researcher important access to records. Your contributions are appreciated and will assist others in finding their ancestors. You have made a difference in research!

Please note:

We invite you to do any enhancing, editing or changing to this article before we post it. If you are considering an edit we ask that it be completed by October 22, 2011. Within a few days of this date this article will post. If you feel that you do not want your article up as yet as a Featured Article please let me know. Thank you for your time and effort!